I'm working with the Loci Antiqui independently, and I was wondering if there is someone here who would check my translations. If there are translations of these passages up somewhere, that would work too, but I havent been able to find any so far.

Post your translations in the forum. If they are lengthy, try to limit postings to the portions which you are unsure of or have questions about. We are more than happy to help. Welcome to the forum :]

There aren't any Loci Antiqui translations anywhere I know of. I was going to make a key for those but I was reminded that those passages should be for independent study. You may find a few queries about Loci Antiqui passages in this section of the forum, but for the most part people have not asked about them. Many of the unaltered texts, especially the poems, have been translated online and can be found online at the Perseus Project and other websites (as original text translations, not Loci Antiqui from Wheelock's). You may feel free to post as often as you like if you have any trouble. That is much better for learning than just looking at the answers and checking them against your own.

One of the ones I had trouble understanding was 4, 'The Sword of Damocles', let me post what I guessed it to be if I could. Let me know if you would like me to post the text from wheelock (mines 6th edition, I'm not sure how much they've changed).

4. The Sword of Damocles
This tyrant pointed himself out to be as happy as possible. But, since one of his flatterers, Damocles, had been recounting his abundance, his greatness of rule, his abundant matters, and had denyed anyone would ever be happier, Dionysius said "You wish therefore, O Damocles, to try for yourself this life and to experience my fortune?" When that man said to wish it himself (??), he ordered the man to be placed on a golden couch and furnished tables of silver and gold (adorned tables with silver and gold?). Then he ordered handsome boys to bring in an exquisite dinner. Damocles seemed a happy man to himself. Each time however, Dionysius ordered a sword above his head to be let down by a horsehair. Damocles, since he saw the sword, fearfully begged the tyrant to permit him to leave, because now he wished not to be "happy." Had Dionysius seemed to have sufficiently demonstrated nothing to be happy to him who would always threaten someone with fear?

Are the parts with the sword correct, and if so, do you know what they mean? Is there a better translation than "happy" throughout the passage? And what about the 'recounting, denying' bit? Also, the last sentence has me worried.

I am willing to help you if I can, but, unfortunately, I haven't got Wheelock's book. Your passage is taken from Cicero's Tusculanae Disputationes. However, I am not sure about the modifications made by Wheelock

johnsmith wrote:
4. The Sword of Damocles
This tyrant pointed himself out to be as happy as possible. But,

Cicero wroteQuamquam hic quidem tyrannus ipse iudicauit quam beatus esset. Nam...
It means (in my best broken English) "However, this tyrant, at least, judged (appreciated?) himself how happy he was. For..." ("how happy he was" means "what was the measure of his happiness", and the tyrant will show that he is very unhappy). This sentence is a general introduction to the story.

Here are some comments about your work. But let me warn you, I am not an English native speaker. So it can happen that you are right while I believe you are not... especially in somewhat complicated texts. Then you will have to correct me.

Anyways, your translation is very sound. Unless I am mislead by an insufficient knowledge of the English use of tenses, I find some inaccuracies when you translate the tenses of the verbs, especially the subjunctives with cum.

"since" : "when" (narrative cum describing the circumstances… rather than causal cum)
"had been recounting" : "was recalling, was reminding" (you translate more as the pluperfect commemorauisset)
"had denyed" would be negauisset : "was denying"
"would ever be" would be fore or futurum esse, a future infinitive : fuisse means here rather "had been"
"himself" : seems superfluous se is the subject of cupere (« As he had said that he wished it »)
"(adorned tables with silver and gold?)" : yes. It is difficult to understand because Wheelock has greatly simplified – if not squeezed - the text (in Cicero : abacosque compluris ornavit argento auroque caelato : « chiselled silver and gold » implies that it is crockery, so « and he adorned many sideboards with (crockery made of) chiselled silver and gold. »
"Each time" : "at the same time", "simultaneously"
"since he saw" : literally "as he had seen"
"Had… seemed" : uidetur is a present, so « Doesn’t D. seem… ? » (Wheelock's Cicero asks for your opinion)
"who… fear" : cui is a dative with impendeat ; in turn, the subject of impendeat is aliqui metus « some fear », « one or another fear », so « … demonstrated that nothing is happy to the one which some fear is threatening »

You're right, I've been confusing the pluperfect and imperfect subjunctives, this was just what I needed to see what I'm doing wrong. I'll also work on better translations of cum and cum clauses. And what's this about insufficient knowledge of English?? You've nothing to worry about there!

I've just started my new Latin class at college so I'll be working with the Vulgate now, do you think you could check some of my translations for it? We're translating Luke first, the going is really slow! There are many new words I've never encountered with Wheelock or 38 Stories, plus the word order is pretty new for me.

I'm not quite sure what the policy here on the forum is with actual schoolwork, this is an 'independent study' course. Let me know there are special rules for such things here.

They are not very strict, we assume that you will be courteous to whoever is helping you by keeping the amount of content within reasonable limits. Also, showing your own attempts is absolutely required so the reviewer can help you understand and not just supply the answers.

Sorry I had one more question about grammer if I could. In these passages, or any passages really, do clauses end with the finite verb? For instance, in the first verse where 'rerum' appears after the clause.

Thanks again! I'll make sure and keep my posts to the parts of the passages I have questions on in the future (providing these translations aren't completely outrageous!).

The Vulgate, alas ! It is the Latin work which I dislike the best ! But I will perhaps learn to like it a bit more (Bad start, though)...

1.1 "completed by us" : "among us" ("by us" would be "a nobis")
1.2 SERMONIS genitive with MINISTRI (literally "servants of the discourse")
1.3 ET means here "too, also" ("it seemed natural also to me...")
1.3 OPTIME vocative singular agreeing with THEOPHILE (excellent Theophilus)
1.3 OMNIBUS : Hieronymus seems to use the dative with ADSECUTO, what is not the common Latin usage, maybe it is a calque from the Greek, where Luke used a verb meaning "follow, accompany" which is followed by the dative. The meaning : "it seemed natural also to me, having surveyed all things (normally OMNIA) from the beginning, to write (it) to you carefully in (chronological) order". One more time, the Greek word used by Luke is clearer to me than Jerome's EX ORDINE.

Well, Jerome's Latin has always confused me, so that a long time I thought he was far more recent than he is eventually.

I could. In these passages, or any passages really, do clauses end with the finite verb? For instance, in the first verse where 'rerum' appears after the clause.

oh no ! although it is frequently so. But here the place of RERUM surprised me also (this seems so awkward : Cicero, even revised by Wheelock, does not write in such a manner...)

Let's wait for the following text, and for other opinions about Jerome also...

Skylax wrote:The Vulgate, alas ! It is the Latin work which I dislike the best !

I feel your pain! The instructor isn't too keen on the classic Latin texts, his main interest seems to be Koine Greek, especially early Christian texts. Greek! =)

I also thought the vulgate was much more recent. Latin must have changed rapidly for the plebs during those centuries.

But anyway, thank you so much for your continued help, Skylax. I'm not sure about how much time or desire you have to continue helping me out; I dont want to be an annoyance! However, I'd love to keep posting passages if I could! I'm up to 1:17, but my translations have been sloppy in places, I'm still very unsure. Ill post a few verses I'm sure I translated incorrectly, but if you enjoy this I'd love to post them all! So far its taken many hours just on these few verses, so it shouldnt be a torrent of material =)

1.7 (The beginning has me worried, especially the illis and eo combination) and he was not with sons (of him?), because Elisebeth was sterile, and they both had both been advanced in their age, (how much liberty should I take with this translation? 'and they were both getting old' would seem more clear, but is this discouraged?)

1.8 it was done, therefore, while he performed his priestly things before God in the way (duty, order?) of his office,

1.9 following the custom of the priests, it was demanded by casting lots (abl of means? 'demanded' sounds like a command so Im assuming ut is used that way -- this is exigo isnt it? hehe) that he place incense of the doorway (I cant see any other way to do this. ingressus is genitive isnt it?) in the temple of God,

1.10 and all the multitude of people (I assume populi is another of Jerome's remote genitives?) were begging outside for incense that hour,

1.11-17 went easier (at least I think so), but again let me know if youd like to see what I got. Thanks so much for your continued help, it really brightens up my studies!

Please post them all. (Nevertheless, I cannot guarantee that I will always reply instantaneously, but I will do my best)

1.7

(The beginning has me worried, especially the illis and eo combination)

ILLIS is a plural dative : NON ERAT ILLIS FILIUS "a son was not to them" (usual, classical way to say "they had got no son"); EO is not linked with ILLIS : EO is an ablative of cause meaning "because of this" "for this reason" and it announces the QUOD
1.7.

'and they were both getting old' would seem more clear, but is this discouraged?)

You should ask your instructor. In principle, a translator has to respect the usage of the target language (here English), so that the translation seems to have been originally written in the target language : he may therefore depart from the literal translation if it is needed. But if your instructor wants to know if you recognize the way in which the Latin has expressed himself, then your "translation" may be more literal. Personally, I think that your last proposition is very good.

1.8 « in the way (duty, order?) of his office » : « order » I think but it is VICIS that matters. It is the same word as VICE in 1.5, denoting, so I’ve been told, one of the 25 « divisions » (in Greek [face=SPIonic]e)fhmeri/ai[/face] which David created among the priests. I think the « division » of Z. is here on his tour of duty…

1.9 « the priests » : literally « the priesthood » sing genitive of SACERDOTIUM
1.9 EXIIT is from EXEO, EXIRE « go out » (from EXIGO, it would be EXEGIT) I understand SORTE (yes, singular ablative of means) EXIIT UT as « it happened (« went out » as a resultate) by casting lots that he… »
1.9 INGRESSUS : difficult form. Here not a genitive from INGRESSUS, US but a perfect participle of the deponent verb INGREDIOR, INGRESSUS SUM, INGREDI « walk in » in the singular nominative masculine, agreeing with the subject of PONERET « that he place incense, having walked into the temple… »

1.10 Yes, a remote genitive
1.10 « for incense that hour » : rather « at incense time » (like « tea time »), say that as you please. HORA is an ablative of time, denoting a moment.

Ahh this makes much more sense. Is the clause here, following ut, a result clause instead of a jussive clause?

Skylax wrote: 1.10 « for incense that hour » : rather « at incense time » (like « tea time »), say that as you please. HORA is an ablative of time, denoting a moment.

I see, is it commonplace to use an adjective in this way? I'll make sure to watch out for this.

Ok, Ill post what I have so far. I was able to translate a few more verses today so there'll be many verses. If you dont have time, Ill post the questions I had with certain verses in parenthesis so you won't have to read through them all.

1.11 the angel of God appeared, therefore, standing upon the right side of the alter,

1.12 and a confused Zaccharias was seeing and fear came down over him.

1.13 However, the angel told him not to fear, because your prayer is heard and your wife Elisabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him Johannus ( John? ),

1.14 and he will be a great joy to you, and exaulted ( ?? I couldnt find exultatio anywhere! ) , and many will rejoice in his ?? ( I couldnt find nativitate either! ),

1.15 He will truly be a great man in God's presence, and he will never drink wine and ?? ( sicera? wine and such things? ), and he will be nourished by the Spirit of God in addition to his mother's womb,

1.16 and he will convert many of the sons of Israel to their ruling God,

1.17 and he will place before him in spirit and virtue of Helia ( who's this? ) so he may wisely convert the father's heart into the sons, and the unfit to the knowledge of the laws, to prepare a perfect people for God.

1.18 And Saccharias said to the angel: Under this, I know I am truly an old man, and my wife is advanced in days.

1.19 And the angel, responding, said: I am Gabriel, who stands before God, and I have come to tell you and to evangelize to you ( Evangalize means 'preach' to me, is there a more appropriate translation? I couldnt find this one in my dictionary either. )

1.20 and Look! You will be silent and not be able to speak, until the day on which these things will be done, because you do not believe ( I used active voice here instead of the passive, is this ok? The passive seemed really awkward to me. ) that my words will come to pass in your time ( the word's time? or Z. and E.'s time? )

1.21 and the people were expecting Zaccharias, because he was delayed in the temple.

1.22 He came out, however he couldn't speak to them, and they understood that he had seen a vision in the temple, and he gave a nod to them, and he was completely mute.

1.23 And so it was, that with his day's duties completed ( this smells wrong to me ) he went home,

1.24 However, after these days, his wife Elizabeth conceived and she hid for five months, saying:

1.25 Because God has done so much for me, in five days he regarded to remove my disgrace ( this is actually opprobrium, isn't it? ) among men

1.26 Therefore, in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God into the city in Galilee which was named Nazareth ( this is the later use of civitatem? I think Wheelock used it to mean state.. )

1.27 to a virgin, whose name was Mary, engaged to a man, whose name was Joseph, of David's house,

1.28 and the angel entered saying to her: Hello! Much of God's favor is with you who are spoken well of among women, ( the last part is odd to me )

1.15 SICERA « an intoxicating drink », and a Hebrew word
1.15 ADHUC EX… Perseus : « even from … » (from the very start of his life, he will be « filled with the Holy Spirit », i.e. under supernatural influence : you will see this notion often in Luke)

1.17 PRAECEDET « he will go before » ANTE ILLUM (=DEUM) « before Him » (God), i.e. he will be God’s champion ; HELIAE from HELIAS, more frequently ELIAS, -AE, masc « Elijah »
1.17 « wisely » : which word is it ?
1.17 « the father's heart into the sons » : yes, but I don’t understand what it means
1.17 INCREDIBILES « unbelievers »
1.17 AD PRUDENTIAM IUSTORUM rather « (he will convert the unbelievers) to the good sense of the just (men)

Note : in 1.17 "so he may convert the father's heart into the sons, "
is a citation from Malachi 4.6 et convertet cor patrum ad filios et cor filiorum ad patres eorum ne forte veniam et percutiam terram anathemate "He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse." (from Perseus) The meaning is that Johannes will be a new Elijah.

1.18 UNDE (from where ; under is SUB) HOC SCIAM : from where will I know this ? (Z. is sceptical, he asks for a sign that angel’s words are true)

1.20 (Your translation makes sense but where is the passive that you modified into an active ?) At the end it is «in return for (PRO) the fact (EO sigular neuter ablative from IS) that you did not believe in my words (dative) which will come to pass in their (SUO) time »

1.23 ET FACTUM EST, « And [this] happened : », seems to be a mere transition introducing a new idea. You will see that very often, like « Look ! » also. UT with the indicative means here « when »

1.25 QUIA is normally « because » but in later Latin (and in medieval Latin) it means often simply « that » (say that…) ; moreover, here it is simply equivalent to « : » (following a Greek usage). Here Elisabeth expresses his joy. QUIBUS is not « five », it is the relative pronoun : « in the days in which he regarded to remove my disgrace » (yes, it is), but RESPEXIT AUFERRE is barely Latin and much more Greek.

1.26 AUTEM don’t mean exactly « therefore ». Basically, it is «one the other hand » (« therefore » : IGITUR, ERGO, maybe ITAQUE)
1.26 ( this is the later use of civitatem? I think Wheelock used it to mean state.. ) you are right but Jerome is not so wrong : CIVITAS denotes an ancient political organisation (Greek POLIS, hence « politics » etc.) which was a « city-state », i.e. a little independent state with basically one real « town » surrounded by a country with villages. In Cicero and Caesar, it is a « state », but in post-Augustan authors (Petronius, Tacitus) it is sometimes a « city » (although seldom).

My instructor is turning up my pace now, so I'll have to produce much more translations after this posting. He would like the first four chapters, or as much of it as I can do, by next Tuesday. Ill try to post up what ive done if you want, but to reduce the time needed to read, Ill try to ask very specific questions before I post, after this message.

Skylax wrote:
1.17 PRAECEDET « he will go before » ANTE ILLUM (=DEUM) « before Him » (God), i.e. he will be God’s champion ; HELIAE from HELIAS, more frequently ELIAS, -AE, masc « Elijah »
1.17 « wisely » : which word is it ?
1.17 « the father's heart into the sons » : yes, but I don’t understand what it means
1.17 INCREDIBILES « unbelievers »
1.17 AD PRUDENTIAM IUSTORUM rather « (he will convert the unbelievers) to the good sense of the just (men)

....

The meaning is that Johannes will be a new Elijah.

Ahh, this helps out a lot. This passage gave me particular trouble. 'Wisely' must have came from cordate, I must have reread it later and changed it to 'heart'. The meaning was a nice addition too, many thanks!

In 1.20, I think I read the -isti as being passive... it was pretty late at night =)

1.29 Who, although seeming to be disorganized in her speech, and who was thinking what kind of greeting that was, ( this one was tough for me, I dont think its completely correct )

1.30 And the Angel said to her: Do not be afraid, Mary, you are found truly loved before God.

1.31 Look! You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus

1.32 Here he will be great, and be called Son of the Highest, and the Ruling God (I hear this is Lord God) will give to him the throne of David, their father,

1.33 and he will reign in the House of Jacob permanently, and his kingdom will never end.

1.34 But Mary said to the angel: How will I bear him, since I've never known a man?

1.35 And the Angel said, responding: The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the spirit of the Highest will cover you, and the child will be called the Son of God.

1.36 And look! Your relative Elisabeth has herself concieved a son, in her old age, and this month is the sixth of her (pregnancy?) who is called sterile

1.37 Because every word will not be impossible before God. (Because no word will be impossible before God)

1.38 But Mary said: Look! A servant of God bears to me your second word, and the Angel departed from her.

1.39 Recovering her strength in those days, Mary left into the mountains with haste, into the nation of Juda

1.40 And she entered into Zaccharias' house and greeted Elisabeth,

1.41 And so it was that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the child jumped for joy in her womb, and the Holy Spirit replenished Elisabeth.

1.42 and she cried out in a strong voice and said: Praise to you among women, and praise to the fruit of your womb.

1.43 And where is this for me, that the mother of my God might come to me (Im not sure about this one, I used your recommendation for UNDE, but the sentence doesnt hold together in my mind. The text Im translating has no punctuation or macrons, is there something Im missing?)

1.44 Look! Yes, this is done, the voice of your greeting in my ears! The infant in my womb jumped about in rejoicing!

1.45 And happy is she who believed, because those things will be completed which have been said by God.

1.46 and Mary said: my soul makes much of God,

1.47 and my spirit rejoiced in God in my greeting (how does 'salutari meo' read at the end of this sentence? Are they still talking about Mary's greeting to Elisabeth?)

1.48 Because he regarded the humility of his slave girls; Look! For from this, all generations will call me blessed.

1.49 Because he has done great things for me, he who is strong and who's name is Holy. ( the last part is thrown together.. but it seems to work. What would you suggest?)

My instructor is turning up my pace now, so I'll have to produce much more translations after this posting. He would like the first four chapters, or as much of it as I can do, by next Tuesday. Ill try to post up what ive done if you want, but to reduce the time needed to read, Ill try to ask very specific questions before I post, after this message.

Skylax wrote:
1.17 PRAECEDET « he will go before » ANTE ILLUM (=DEUM) « before Him » (God), i.e. he will be God’s champion ; HELIAE from HELIAS, more frequently ELIAS, -AE, masc « Elijah »
1.17 « wisely » : which word is it ?
1.17 « the father's heart into the sons » : yes, but I don’t understand what it means
1.17 INCREDIBILES « unbelievers »
1.17 AD PRUDENTIAM IUSTORUM rather « (he will convert the unbelievers) to the good sense of the just (men)

....

The meaning is that Johannes will be a new Elijah.

Ahh, this helps out a lot. This passage gave me particular trouble. 'Wisely' must have came from cordate, I must have reread it later and changed it to 'heart'. The meaning was a nice addition too, many thanks!

In 1.20, I think I read the -isti as being passive... it was pretty late at night =)

And now the new passages,

1.29 Who, although seeming to be disorganized in her speech, and who was thinking what kind of greeting that was, ( this one was tough for me, I dont think its completely correct )

1.30 And the Angel said to her: Do not be afraid, Mary, you are found truly loved before God.

1.31 Look! You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus

1.32 Here he will be great, and be called Son of the Highest, and the Ruling God (I hear this is Lord God) will give to him the throne of David, their father,

1.33 and he will reign in the House of Jacob permanently, and his kingdom will never end.

1.34 But Mary said to the angel: How will I bear him, since I've never known a man?

1.35 And the Angel said, responding: The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the spirit of the Highest will cover you, and the child will be called the Son of God.

1.36 And look! Your relative Elisabeth has herself concieved a son, in her old age, and this month is the sixth of her (pregnancy?) who is called sterile

1.37 Because every word will not be impossible before God. (Because no word will be impossible before God)

1.38 But Mary said: Look! A servant of God bears to me your second word, and the Angel departed from her.

1.39 Recovering her strength in those days, Mary left into the mountains with haste, into the nation of Juda

1.40 And she entered into Zaccharias' house and greeted Elisabeth,

1.41 And so it was that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the child jumped for joy in her womb, and the Holy Spirit replenished Elisabeth.

1.42 and she cried out in a strong voice and said: Praise to you among women, and praise to the fruit of your womb.

1.43 And where is this for me, that the mother of my God might come to me (Im not sure about this one, I used your recommendation for UNDE, but the sentence doesnt hold together in my mind. The text Im translating has no punctuation or macrons, is there something Im missing?)

1.44 Look! Yes, this is done, the voice of your greeting in my ears! The infant in my womb jumped about in rejoicing!

1.45 And happy is she who believed, because those things will be completed which have been said by God.

1.46 and Mary said: my soul makes much of God,

1.47 and my spirit rejoiced in God in my greeting (how does 'salutari meo' read at the end of this sentence? Are they still talking about Mary's greeting to Elisabeth?)

1.48 Because he regarded the humility of his slave girls; Look! For from this, all generations will call me blessed.

1.49 Because he has done great things for me, he who is strong and who's name is Holy. ( the last part is thrown together.. but it seems to work. What would you suggest?)

1.29 QUAE here is no true relative pronoun : it is equivalent to ET EA ; QUAE CUM VIDISSET = ET CUM EA VIDISSET « And as she had seen that … » TURBATA EST « she was disorganized… » ET COGITABAT « and she thought (she wondered)… »

1.32 EIUS is « of him », thus « his » father

1.36 ILLI « for that (woman) » : I would say « it is the sixth month (of pregnancy) for that (woman) who is [still] called [falsely] sterile ». Gabriel shows a previous example of odd pregnancy : a till then « sterile » woman is now already in her sixth month.

1.38 ECCE ANCILLA DOMINI : « here is the servant of the Lord » ; SECUNDUM is here a preposition meaning « according to », so « let (the thing) be done according to your word »

1.39 ADSURGENS (or ASSURGENS) : « rising up » (In the Bible, stories about journeys or other actions begin often so : he/she rose up and…)

1.43 You missed nothing : there is a FIT implied : UNDE HOC MIHIT FIT UT… « from where ( = how) does it happen to me that… ».

1.44 UT with the indicative = here « when » : « when the sound of your greetings was done (= happened = was heard) in my ears, … »

1.45 « (have been said) to her (by God)» (EI dative)

1.46 IN DEO SALUTARI MEO : « in my salvaging God », so « in God who saves me », that is no more about greetings but about Salvation !

1.48 « slave girl » singular genitive ; « from this » or maybe « because of this »

1.49 I would suggest a full stop after POTENS EST (Well Perseus does it also). Then ET SANCTUM NOMEN EIUS « And his name is holy »… (and it goes on in 1.50 : « and his MISERICORDIA… » )

It couldn't be more timely! I had just posted those verses this morning, thanks =) Your comments about the meanings of the passages are very helpful indeed.

I finished up the first chapter this afternoon, the translations are starting to come easier and faster, which is very encouraging!

Ill post the questions I have before the text so you dont have to wade through the torrent of verses (unless you have time of course!):
---------------------------
In 1.50, I translated 'progenies et progenies' as 'descendants and descendants', is this just a phrase for saying "lots and lots"? Also is there an understood 'est' or something similar here?

In 1.51, "mente"? I translated the passage as below, but mente as 'mention' seems wrong to me

1.50 yes, an undestood « is » ! PROGENIES here rather « generation » (Lewis & Short says that is « eccl[esiastical] Latin »), so « for generations and generations », i. e. « forever » ; TIMENTIBUS is not linked with PROGENIES : this participle is used here as a noun : « for the (persons) fearing him », i. e. « for those who fear him »

1.51 MENTE (ablative) means here « Mind, thought, plan, purpose, intention, design » (I would have used CONSILIO here but MENTE is also attested in this meaning) so « by a plan of his heart » (CORDIS SUI : genitive), i.e. « well intentionally », so « He made (= put) strentgh in his arms – full stop – He scattered … »

1.55 IN SAECULA one more time « for the generations » or « for the centuries », « forever »
Moreover, I saw that Abraham (dative, as we see it with SEMINI)… is no apposition to PATRES accusative. Some put brackets : (sicut locutus est ad patres nostros), then Abraham would be a dative of interest afer 1.54 : he supported Israel… (so he told to our fathers) « for Abraham and his descendants, forever»

1.58 « relatives », yes

1.61 : as in 1.25, QUIA = « : »

1.72 «in order to exercise mercy for our fathers » (eccl. Lat. says Lewis & Short once more for MISERICORDIAM FACERE "exercise mercy")

MISERICORDIA : "mercy" looks good, but my knowledge of English vocabulary has not got so high a resolution power.

johnsmith wrote:
1.59 And so it was that in eight days, they came to circumcise the boy, and they named him by his father Zaccharias (This was automatic back then?)

Maybe sort of "default" name as the father cannot express his will? I saw no explanation. By the way the imperfect VOCABANT "they were calling him" means "they were willing to call him", as they finally called him by another name. Sort of imperfect de conatu

Many thanks again, all of this is just what I needed. Your knowledge of the text is outstanding, all of this background knowledge speaks volumes when I try to translate a new, unknown passage!

I ordered a new testament this week, and it should arrive today. This will help out a lot, as the current text Im using (from the univ. library) has no punctuation. The prose is in beautiful verse form, a real sight to see, but hey, Im trying to translate, not present it! =)

I notice youve mentioned Lewis & Short dictionary from time to time, is this the dictionary you would recommend? Im currently using the New College Dictionary, its nice and small, but I've found it lacking in ecclesiastical words.

Until I get the new text this afternoon I'm going to try and put together a vocabulary list of the new words ive encountered, it might be helpful for anyone coming straight from Wheelock (and certainly helpful for me!). Ill post it and some new verses tonight if I have some time.

I cant thank you enough for helping me out with this Skylax. If you're a Latin instructor, your students don't know how good they have it!

I received my new copy of the new testament vulgate! This version has punctuation, which makes things go much faster and more smoothly. Now all I need is a better paper dictionary, I've looked around for Lewis & Short, but noone has it in stock.

I was able to finish up chapter 2, which was shorter than the first one (and more well known to me). Ill post questions first, then the text:
---------------

In 2.13, the verse ends with 'dicentium', I translated this as 'saying', but is this correct? I havent encountered this before.

In 2.15, and many other passages, the word 'verbum' is used, but in such a way that it seems to mean 'many words' instead of just one. I found in the online dictionary that verbum also could mean 'proverb' so I used this, but what would you recommend? Also, I see 'secundum verbum', does this just mean the 'second proverb' or something similar? In fact, what does it mean to say "Secundum Lucam"? Does Secundum mean Gospel?

In 2.17, this sentence was VERY HARD for me.. maybe because of my mistranslation of verbum? And how do they 'fecerunt' the 'verbum'? Didnt the angel 'fecerat' it instead? (if that makes sense)

In 2.20, does omnibus mean 'the things they heard and saw'? or does it mean the shepherds glorified god 'to everyone'? Or something else? =)

In 2.23-24, what do all these prophecies mean? Does 'duos pullos columbrarum' mean: 'the two children of doves?'

In 2.26, is 'accepted the responsibility' the correct feeling of this passage? I havent encountered a phrase like this before.

In 2.32, 'revelationem gentium' I translated this as 'the revelation of the family' what does that mean? Is this even correct?

In 2.41, who is this Pascha that they're celebrating?

And one burning quesiton I have, but that I always forget to ask: How did the Romans say "Yes" or "No"? It seems like the first thing a student would learn, but in all this time I've never known.

And the text:
---------------

2.1 Now it was in those days that an edict left from Caesar Agustus that the whole territory might be described on paper.

2.2 This description was first done by the command of Cyrus in Syria.

2.3 and all went so they might be declared individuals in their city.

2.4 And now, Ioseph from Galilee came down from the city of Nazareth into the city of David in Judea, which is called Bethlehem to him, because he was of the house and family of David,

2.5 to be declared with Mary, pledged to be his wife, who was pregnant.

2.6 Now it was that when they were there, the days of pregnancy were completed.

2.7 and she bore her first-born son, and covered him with rags and rested him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

2.8 And shepherds were in the region, each one alert and keeping careful guard over their flock in the night.

2.9 And look! An angel of God stood upright near them, and the clarity of God surrounded them, and they were terrified with a great fear.

2.10 and the Angel said to them: Do not be afraid, for look! I preach to you the highest rejoicing for all people,

2.11 because today a savior has been born to you, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David,

2.12 and you will discover this sign to you; an infant covered in rags and placed in a manger.

2.13 And suddenly with it (the angel) there was a multitude of angels in the sky, praising God and saying:

2.14 Glory in the Highest God, and on earth, peace among men with good intentions.

2.15 And so it was that the Angels left from them into heaven, the shepherds said to eachother: Let us travel all the way to Bethlehem and see this proverb, because it has been done, because God commands us.

2.16 And they quickly came and saw Mary and Ioseph, and the child placed in the manger.

2.17 But seeing the sign, they fulfilled the proverb, because this was told to them about the boy.

2.18 And all who heard marvelled about this, which had been said by the shepherds themselves.

2.19 But Mary preserved all these words, collecting them in her heart.

2.20 And the shepherds turned around glorifying and praising God in everything they heard and saw, just as it was said to them

2.21 And after eight days had passed, the child was circumcised, (and) his name was called Iesus, because it was said by the angel before the child was conceived in the womb.

2.23 Just as it was written in the Law of God: "every male disclosed from the womb shall be called sacred by God"

2.24 and that which was said in the Law of God: "through the dove or the two children of doves"

2.25 And Look! A man was in Ierusalem, whose name was Simeon, and he was just, and anxious, expecting the salvation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was over him,

2.26 and he accepted the responsibility from the Holy Spirit that he would not see death unless first seeing Christ the Lord.

2.27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple. And his parents, while leading their boy Iesus to him (Simeon), to complete the second proverb of the law through him,

2.28 and he accepted him in his arms (elbows) and blessed and praised God, and said:

2.29 Now I depart from your service, and your second proverb, in peace, Lord,

2.30 Because my eyes have seen your salvation,

2.31 which has been prepared before all the people

2.32 a light to the revelation of the family and glorious people of your Israel

2.33 And it was that his father and mother marvelled over this, which was spoken by him.

2.34 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary , his mother: "Look! It has been placed here, the fall and resurrection of many in Israel, and in this sign which is spoken against,

2.35 and your own spirit will be penetrated by the sword, so that it might be revealed out of many hearts to our families."

2.36 And Anna was a prophet, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser. She was getting very old (progressed in many days) and was living with a man for seven years from her purity.

2.37 And she was a widow up to her 84th year, since she had not left from the temple, fasting and appealing to God, serving night and day.

2.38 And on the same hour, coming over her, she confessed to God, and spoke of him to all people who expected the salvation of Ierusalem. (Salvation from Rome?)

2.39 And so they (Mary and Ioseph again) might complete all prophecies of the Law of God, they returned into Galilee into their city Nazareth.

2.40 But the boy grew and aquired much wisdom; and the favor of God was over him.

2.41 And his parents went every year into Ierusalem on the day of the festival of Pascha.

2.42 And when he (Iesus) was of his twelfth year, reaching the second custom of the days of festival,

2.43 And many days had passed, although they had left (his parents) the boy Iesus remained in Ierusalem, and his parents did not know.

2.44 But they thought him to be in the crowd, they followed the path for one day, and requested him from among their family and friends.

2.45 And not finding him, they carried on back to Ierusalem, asking for him.

2.46 And it was after the third day that they found him in the temple, sitting in the middle of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.

2.47 But they were astounded over all which they heard from him, his foresight and his answers.

2.48 And seeing him they marvelled (his parents), and his Mother said to him: "Son, why did you do this to us? Look, your father and I have been painfully searching for you!"

2.49 And hes aid to them: "Why were you searching for me? Didn't you know that in here, where my Father is, is where I ought to be?"

2.50 And they did not understand his words, which he spoke to them.

2.51 And he left with them and came to Nazareth, and was placed under their watch. And his mother preserved all these words in her heart.

2.52 And Iesus advanced in knowledge and in life, and in thanks before God and men.

2.13 Yes, it is the active present participle from DICO. In my opinion, it is used as a noun in the genitive, modifying MILITIAE : « (the heavenly host) [made] of [angels] praising… and saying… »

2.15 here VERBUM = « message, communication » (made in 2.10-12) – Using the singular instead of a plural is a stylistic device called a sunecdoche. In 2.29, in the phrase SECUNDUM VERBUM, SECUNDUM is a preposition meaning here « according to », thus « according to your word » = « according to what you said to me » ; SECUNDUM LUCAM means « according to Luke »

2.17 « but seeing (him, the INFANTEM from 2.16), they learned (from COGNOSCO) about the message (that is was true), which had been told to them about this boy » Meaning : coming to verify the truth about what the angel said, the shepherds find eventually that all is effectively so. VERBUM FACERE « express a word » is good Latin.

2.20 Correct translation

2.22 no translation seen. It says that the Holy Family goes to Jerusalem to present Jesus to the Lord and to offer a sacrifice (to « redeem » their first born, see below)

2.23-24 : see Exodus, 13.1 and 13.11 It is not sacred « by » but sacred « to » God. It seems to be an usage derived from very old ideas. Very often, the gods receive from the men the first fruits or the first born. It means that first fruits are burned and first born sacrificed to the gods, because « they belong to them », so no man may use what belongs to the gods. The idea is that if the men give a part from their goods to the gods, the gods are satisfied : thus they will allow men to take advantage quietly of the rest of their fruits and later born. Men are then reassured. Now, it means theoretically that even the first baby from each mother has to be killed for the gods. Although the Carthaginians killed and burned many young children for their god, it was commonly seen as an unacceptable burden. The Hebrew had thus conceived a means not to kill their human first born : the first born had to be redeemed. The price to pay was not to high : either two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, but note that God must be satisfied : he gets TWO young ones instead of one ! One may think that this seemly old and archaic usage was maybe already obsolete : Luke shows that Jesus has been brought up in a pious Jewish family, so he was no infidel, no « scoundrel ».

2.26 « he had received the answer that… » Simeon wanted to see the Messiah, and had thus asked for it in his prayers : he had received an answer from the Holy Spirit (« yes, you will »).

2.32 GENTIUM from GENS, GENTIS means here « nations » (the foreing nations : Greeks, Romans, Iranians…). It is an odd genitive to mean « revelation to the nations », maybe « of the nations » means here « regarding the nations ». We may understand that in Simeon’s opinion, Jesus will be someone the nations will hear about.

2.41 Pascha is a feast (Passover)

About Yes and No : William Annis has explained it not so long ago, but I am unable to retrieve his post. There are no latin words expressing specifically « yes » or « no ». Basically, in an affirmative answer, you say again commonly the verb of the question, in a negative answer you say « non… » before the verb. « Occidistine eum ? (did you kill him ?) – Occidi (yes). – Non occidi (no).

Skylax wrote:
2.15 SECUNDUM VERBUM, SECUNDUM is a preposition meaning here « according to », thus « according to your word » = « according to what you said to me » ; SECUNDUM LUCAM means « according to Luke »

Very helpful! I've encountered this many many times, but I've never known how to properly translate it -- I never guessed secundum to be a preposition.

Skylax wrote:
2.22 no translation seen.

Woops, I skipped it to come back, but never did! I read it as:

2.22 And after those days of cleansing were done according to the law of Moses, they carried him into Jerusalem so they could place (him) before God.

...which wouldn't have made much sense without your outstanding explanations of the rituals and prophecies! Your knowledge enriches this experience for me so much! I appreciate the answer to the 'yes/no' question too; it's nice to finally put that issue to rest in my mind.

I completed the 3rd and 4th chapters this weekend, they were smaller than the others, and it seems to be going much faster. Its more reading, instead of 'decoding' =)

Heres the questions I had:
-------------------------------

3.3 I had trouble with the final part, 'praedicans ... peccatorum', my translation: 'announcing baptism for repentance in the forgiveness of sins', with paenitentiae as a dative... this seems awkward though.

3.5 'et erunt prava in directa, et aspera in vias planas' I translated as 'and the crooked things will be made into straight things, and the harsh things on the roads (will be made into) plains' This seems very strange to me.. are the missing words correct?

3.7-8 does 'ergo' mean 'for his sake (God's)'?

3.14 'et contenti estote stipendiis vestris', 'and to live by stretching your pay' Is this what he is saying?

3.19-20 this was very hard for me, the whole thing. I made many attempts at this, but this is the best I could do, I welcome any comments: "But the tetrarch Herod, since his wife had been stolen by him from Herod, and out of all the evil things which Herod did, and he came up to this above all, and he snatched up John into prison."

4.8 (and verses) When they say 'scriptum est', is this the perfect passive participle? Or the noun 'scriptum'? "it has been written" seems more correct to me, although I remember hearing it 'it is written' somewhere.

4.13 'Diabolus recessit ab illo usque ad tempus' Is this 'D. left from him even for a time' as in 'just for a moment'?

4.34 the demons say "Sine!" as "Without"? What does this mean?

I would also be very interested in your comments about the end of Chapter 3, where Luke traces Joseph all the way back to Adam. Was this taken seriously? Also.. doesnt the text say that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, as in, Joseph had nothing to do with it? How would Joseph's lineage make a difference here?

Also, Id love to hear your comments about the prophecies they quote from time to time, if you have the time of course!

3.19-20 a) You ignored HERODIADE from HERODIAS, -ADIS, « Herodias » the name or Herod’s sister-in-law, and also FRATRE – b) CORRIPIO, CORRIPERE doesn’t means here « steal » but « reprove » (both from the primary meaning of « seize violently ») – c) ILLO stands for IOHANNE, so « but since the tetrach Herod was reproved by that man (John) about Herodias, his brother’s wife [Herod had a love affair with Herodias which he later married. This affair shocked the Jews], and (was also reproved) about all the evil things which Herod did, he (=Herod) came up to this [does it mean « he added this » ?] above all : he snatched up John into prison. »

4.8 Here SCRIPTUM EST introduces a quotation from Deut. 6.13 thus the meaning is « it has been written ». If SCRIPTUM were a noun, the meaning would be « there is a written work ». One must translate according to the context, what you dit here correctly.

4.13 According to the context [hehe], the meaning should be « till a (better) occasion ». The Latin is rough, meaning above all that devil’s action is brought to an end this time.

4.34 SINE, not the preposition here, but the imperative of SINO, SINERE « allow, let »

About the family tree : yes, Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, but it is also interesting to show that he was brought up in a « good » family, with King David in its ancestors (Regarding Adam, this surprised me too, as, in the Jewish conception, all people can be traced to him !). Giving a family tree is an understandable reaction in an aristocratic society, where family is a very important thing. There, even if you are God’s son [a rather abstract notion, after all], a good family tree will impress the crowds.

All outstanding help! Thanks so much for explaining the family tree, I can see how it would definitely improve Jesus' standing in the eyes of the aristocracy. And your breakdown of the Herod sister portion made it much more clear to me.

The 'ergo' translation also helps, I think I saw the 'for his sake' in the dictionary, and became excited =) This will make those sentences a little more under control.

I turned in the first four chapters today, it sounds like things will be going well. He also explained many of the idioms used, such as 'what to us and you' which I didnt understand completely. I asked the instructor about taking liberty with the translations, as we had discussed here in this thread. However he would like a more literal translation, so no more 'she was getting old' instead of 'she was advanced in her years' for me! =)

I wondered if I could ask you a bit about the process of translating these passages, before I get started on ch 5. What would the best process here be? I've been reading through the chapter as best I can, writing down words I was not familiar with, writing out those translations, then going back and translating it proper, writing it out; but could you recommend improvements in this process?

What you described looks fine. What could I recommend? Have also an good encyclopaedia at your disposal (it can be online) and why not a map.

In case of difficulty, think first that "it can not be so difficult", so "if it was easy, what could it be?"

You saw already that a big difficulty arises often from the many possible parsings for a word, so if it goes rough, take a word after another trying to recall all the possible parsings. In principle, each new word reduces the number of parsings that are possible for the previous words. This method was recommended long ago by the US Professor Hall, whose article is on the Perseus website. But I think you should do so only in case of major difficulty because it can be tedious.

And... use first your dictionary before looking into Lewis & Short, which is sometimes too comprehensive : remember CONTENTUS !

Haha, its my new anthem. Your technique of using my small dictionary first, then the online dictionary, has been working well! This time, my dictionary missed 'coram' in 5.25 (which was pretty hard to find even on the net) and 'teloneum' in 5.27 (it kept finding Telamonian Ajax, hehe). And I had to work forever to discover the meaning of 'discumbentes'!

Heres the questions I have from Ch 5:
--------------------------------------------

In 5.4, "Ut cessavit autem loqui, dixit ad Simonem" I read as: "For so that he might cease speaking, he said to Simon" was Simon rambling on or something? I was surprised to see Ut here.. it doesnt look like sentences i've seen before. Is my translation incorrect?

In 5.9, the verse seems to repeat over and over that they caught the fish, am I reading it wrong? My translation: "For wonder enclosed him and all, who were with him in catching the fish, which they had caught."

In 5.17, 'et virtus Domini erat ei ad sanandum' I read as: 'and with the virtue of God they were to cure (people)?' Is this proper use of the gerundive here? I havent seen many of these so far in Luke.

In 5.20, another 'ut' which confuses me: 'Quorum fidem ut vidit, dixit' I read (incorrectly I'm sure) as: 'Of their faith, that he might see, he said' Is the 'Quorum fidem' phrase meant to be inside this ut clause? as in: 'so that he might see of their faith' or something similar?

In 5.27, when Jesus is speaking to Levi for the first time, the text says "et ait illi: Sequere me." Maybe my grammar has failed me, but isnt illi and the plural imperative indicating he's speaking to more than one person? Who are the extra people?

Chapter 5:
-------------
5.1 And so it was, with the crowd urging him and hearing the word of God, and he stood near lake Genesareth,

5.2 and he saw two ships standing near the lake; but the fishermen left from them and were washing their nets.

5.3 But ascending into one boat, where Simon was, he asked him to leave from the land a little, and sitting, he taught the crowd from the ship.

5.4 For so that he might cease speaking, he said to Simon: "Lead onto the other side, and cast your nets to capture (the fish?)

5.5 And responding, Simon said: "Leader, laboring through the whole night, we have caught nothing; but on your word, I will cast the nets."

5.6 And when they had done this, they caught a great supply of fish; for their nets burst open.

5.7 And they gave a nod to their partners, who were in the other ship, to come and help them; and they came and filled both ships; to such a degree that they were sinking!

5.8 When Simon Peter saw this, he prostrated himself to Jesus' knees, saying: "Leave from me, because I am a man of many sins, Lord."

5.9 For wonder enclosed him and all, who were with him in catching the fish, which they had caught.

5.10 And similarly (wonder enclosed) Jacob and John, sons of Zebediah, who were with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon: Do not be afraid; Now from this day, you will catch men!"

5.11 And docking their ships on land, leaving all, they followed him.

5.12 And so it was, while Jesus was in some city, look! a man (who had) great leprosy; and seeing Jesus, he fell prostrate on his face, asking him, saying: "Lord, if you wish, you can heal me."

5.13 And extending his hand he touched him, saying: "I wish (it)! Be cured!" and the leper immediately left from him."

5.14 And he instructed him to never speak, but: "Leave, go to the priests, and offer through your mess, just as Moses prescribed in his testament."

5.15 For the rumor about him was travelling about all the more, and a great crowd convened;

5.16 For he was sitting in the desert and speaking.

5.17 And so it was that on one of the days, he was teaching, and the Pharisees were sitting on the rocks teaching, where they came from all cities in Galilee and Judea, and Jerusalem; and the virtue of God was to them that they should cure (people).

5.18 And look! Men were carrying a man on a bed, who was paralyzed, and they sought to bring him and place him before him (Jesus).

5.19 And not finding a way to carry him before the crowd, they climbed above the roof and they lowered him, with the bed, through the tiles into the middle before Jesus.

5.20 Of their faith, that he might see, he said: "Man, your sins are forgiven." (I'm glad Jesus called people 'man', I do that too!)

5.21 And the scribes and Pharisees begin to think, saying: "Who is this man, who speaks blasphemies? Who can dismiss sins except God alone?"

5.22 So that he might come to know what Jesus thought of them, he said, responding to them: "What do you think in your hearts?

5.23 "Because is it easier to say: 'Your sins are dismissed', or to say, 'Rise up and walk'?

5.24 For so that you may know that the son of man has the power on earth to dismiss sins, - (he says to the paralyzed man) - To you I say, 'Rise up, take your bed, and go to your house.'"

5.25 And immediately rising in their presence he bore, on where he was laying, and left into his own house glorifying God.

5.26 And all watching marvelled, and they were praising God, and they had been filled with fear, saying: "Today we have seen a miracle!"

5.27 And after these things he left, and saw a taxman named Levi, sitting on the toll-booth, and he said to them(??): "Follow me."

5.28 And leaving everything, rising he followed him.

5.29 And Levi made a great feast in his house, and there was a great crowd of taxmen, and of others (is this here to make the dinner a little more acceptable to the reader?), who were relaxing with them.

5.30 And the Pharisees and their scribes were murmuring adverse things, saying to his (Jesus') students: "Why do you eat and drink with taxmen and sinners?"

5.31 And responding, Jesus said to them: "They do not go to the doctor, those who are well, but those who have illness."

5.32 I have not come to call just men, but to call sinners to repentance.

5.33 And they said to him: "The students of John frequently become hungry, and begging, similar to the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink!"

5.34 To which Jesus said: "Are you able, living with wives, when with them is the bridegroom, to become hungry?

5.35 "For the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, they will truly be hungry in those days."

5.36 And he said the analogy to them: "Noone tears away a seam from a new garment and sews it into an old garment, otherwise he will break up the new, and the old garments will not come together with the seam from the new.

5.37 And noone sends new wine into old bottles, otherwise the new wine will break the bottles and it will be poured out, and the bottles will come to nothing.

5.38 But the new wine has been placed in new bottles.

5.39 And noone drinking the old wishes the new; for he says: "The old is better!"

Unfortunately, your first encounter with the gerund/gerundive is a bad one. Classical Latin would have said AD SANANDOS EOS « for them to be cured », i.e. « in order to cure them », with a gerundive in the plural accusative agreeing with EOS. Here, Jerome used a gerund, i.e. the verbal noun (declension of the infinitive), after a preposition and with a direct object : classical Latin does never so. Jerome did so because he follows here too closely the Greek text, which says "cure" in the infinitive.
Meaning : « The virtue of God was (= was working, was « ON ») to cure them ».

5.20 QUORUM = ET EORUM – You are right : QUORUM FIDEM UT VIDIT = ET UT VIDIT FIDEM EORUM « And when he saw their faith » ; QUORUM is outside the UT-clause because it must be the first word in the sentence (containing the ET…) and FIDEM also in order to be close to QUORUM (« their faith » ; maybe also in an emphatic position)

5.27 ILLI here is a singular dative « and he said to him » ; although SEQUERE is a difficult form, you saw correctly that it is an imperative. But why plural ? It is the 2nd person singular « Follow (me) ». Plural would be SEQUIMINI in the 2nd person.

Hello, I'm a self-studier trying to do all the passages in Wheelock 1 before I move on to the reader. It's going slowly since I finished the 40 chapters, I'm afraid. Anyway, for whatever reason, I am really stuck on the following sentence in Wheelock's Latin Loci Antiqui 6:

Quis enim aut eum diligat quem metuat aut eum a quo se metui putet?

So far, I have it translated as

"Who indeed would either esteem him or fear him whom he ____?"

Something about the "quem" there, and the phrase "a quo se metui putet" really has me thrown into confusion. Is that putet the future of putere, or the subjunctive of putare? Neither make smuch sense to me. Is that metui the dative of "fear, anxiety, dread" or the first person perfect of "to fear"? Again, I can't get any combination of possibilities to work out. And I have no idea what to do with "a quo" there ---

Another possibility, I guess, is that the sentence should translate into something like ---

"Who indeed would either esteem him whom he fears or would think himself ..." but I can't make sense of the end of that either.

I don't know how much help you're looking for, but maybe it would help to reorder it as

Quis enim diligat aut eum quem metuat aut eum a quo se metui putet?

Your second translation with starts out right with "Who indeed would either esteem him whom he fears". For the second part, putet is indeed in the subjunctive (for the same reason as metuat) but metui is the passive infinitive, used here in indirect discourse depending on putet. And a quo is being used to indicate the agent of metui. Does that help?

modus.irrealis wrote:I don't know how much help you're looking for, but maybe it would help to reorder it as

Quis enim diligat aut eum quem metuat aut eum a quo se metui putet?

Your second translation with starts out right with "Who indeed would either esteem him whom he fears". For the second part, putet is indeed in the subjunctive (for the same reason as metuat) but metui is the passive infinitive, used here in indirect discourse depending on putet. And a quo is being used to indicate the agent of metui. Does that help?

This helps alot. Stupidly, I didn't recognize metui as the infinitive of the passive of metuere here. However, I'm still a little confused about the "a quo." While understand its function now as the ablative of agent, why is "quo" used? This would translate as:

Who indeed would either esteem him whom he fears or think that he himself is feared by whom...

Sorry, I'm really having trouble with this construction for some reason.

mozartpc27 wrote:This helps alot. Stupidly, I didn't recognize metui as the infinitive of the passive of metuere here. However, I'm still a little confused about the "a quo." While understand its function now as the ablative of agent, why is "quo" used?

Quo refers back to the second eum, "him by whom." So it's something like

Who indeed would esteem either him whom he fears or him by whom he thinks he is feared?

That sounds a little odd in English, with "fear" as a passive, so maybe it's better as "or him who he thinks fears him."